masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum talk:Limit on Personal Images
'Effects' I don't think discussion should be closed, because the supposed outcome of the policy doesn't jive with the vote. The policy was voted down. Why should anything change because of a rejected policy? -- Dammej (talk) 01:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :Except nothing has changed. Previously there has been no personal images allowed, as the ones that were found, were quickly put up for deletion, and then deleted. Since the policy to allow personal images was rejected, they have to be linked to your user space. The Effects section states what must be done to get personal images in your user page, which previously wasn't spelled out, but rather implied. The only thing that changes, is now it states what you have to do for personal images, rather than the implied version. And the discussion is closed because the policy is in effect and requires a one week cooldown period before it can be addressed again per site policy in the CG. Lancer1289 01:50, June 22, 2011 (UTC) ::And the discussion is closed because the policy is in effect... But it isn't! It was rejected! There is no policy on personal images. We can't spell out a policy that hasn't been enacted or discussed. We can reiterate an existing policy, but none exists! -- Dammej (talk) 01:58, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :::Yes there is a policy in effect, the previous policy of no personal images are allowed on the site. See my previous comment for examples of how this policy is in effect. The effects section spells out what must be done to get personal images into your user space. Previously this hasn't been spelled out, but rather implied. So nothing has changed except that instructions to get personal images has been provided. That's it! Nothing has been changed! Rather, further instructions on the matter have been spelled out that were previously implied. Lancer1289 02:05, June 22, 2011 (UTC) My point is that these effects are immaterial to this particular policy discussion. If we should spell out the existing (implied) policy more clearly, then that should take place in a separate policy forum or directly on the MoS page regarding images, not here. This policy was rejected. There should be no 'effects' from a rejected policy, precisely because nothing has changed. -- Dammej (talk) 02:11, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :They are quite relevant actually. Because the policy of no personal images is back in effect, some people may wonder how they can get personal images on their user page. Rather than telling them one by one the implied policy, we instead just spell out the implied policy, so they can follow the directions. Nothing has changed about personal images, you aren't allowed any, and because of that, instructions on how to get personal images onto your user space have been provided so you can display them if you want. Lancer1289 02:23, June 22, 2011 (UTC) ::But it was never not in effect. The policy was rejected, so nothing changed about the image policy. Codifying an implied policy inside of a rejected policy discussion will only lead to confusion. This is why I am adamant that these effects not be listed here. -- Dammej (talk) 02:29, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :::So wait, now you are agreeing nothing has changed and you are only arguing the fact that instructions on how to get personal images on your user page? Instructions that would have been provided anyway to people who asked? That doesn't make any sense. Lancer1289 02:37, June 22, 2011 (UTC) ::::Imagine that someone asks why they can't upload personal images to their user page. You link them here, where these instructions are found. They see a big fat "Policy Rejected" banner at the top of the page, then wonder why on earth anything on this page would be relevant to them uploading images. A policy was proposed, and rejected. So what? ::::Now imagine that, instead of linking them here, you link to a policy page which was approved, complete with nice pretty banner saying "Approved". They then can scroll down and see the policy against uploading personal images has been spelled out nice and clear. ::::You obviously think the difference is too slight to care about, but I don't. Rejected policies should never be used to describe current policy, only to demonstrate previous arguments for/against that policy. -- Dammej (talk) 02:43, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :::::So why shouldn't we say since this policy is rejected, this current policy is still in effect, and here's how you can still display images? If something that was in effect, and then voted down, wouldn't you like to know what the current policy is just so you can review it? As previously stated, nothing has changed about the policy, and if you would take another glance at the template it says "Any additional information may or may not be listed at the bottom of this page." This clearly falls under the heading of additional information as it describes information that could have to be given piecemeal. Instead we can link them to this page, and to that specific section for the instructions. I really can't see why you have such an issue with this. Lancer1289 02:56, June 22, 2011 (UTC) I think what Dammej is saying is that, despite the fact that this proposal failed, personal images (which had previously been permitted under site policy, hence their existence in the first place) are being nominated for deletion. There simply is no current policy supporting this mass deletion of "personal images". None. As such, calling into question the justification for this wave of deletions seems legitimate, in my opinion. Prior to this failed proposal, images had been handled on a case-by-case basis, and in point of fact, personal images had been explicitly allowed and had survived delete nominations. Then suddenly, this proposal fails and then wham-bang! Mass delete nominations! Based on what? It's a valid question, and one I'd like to see answered as well. SpartHawg948 03:04, June 22, 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)When I read the "effects" about 12 hours ago, I had exactly the same thought with Dammej (but I was just too sleepy to comment then). My first impression was something has changed as a result of this policy proposal. It's the way you word it gives out a wrong impression. Perhaps the more appropriate way to explain is "Because the proposal has been rejected, the current policy remains unchanged.'' — Teugene (Talk) 03:09, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :And the current policy is that there is no policy, which is why I'm opposing many of these deletions. Nonexistent policies should not be used as the basis for delete proposals on images that are in use. SpartHawg948 03:12, June 22, 2011 (UTC) ::Bless you, SpartHawg! I had been (apparently) unable to find the words to describe what disturbed me about this, but I think you've put it rather succinctly. Thanks for the wordsmith assistance! -- Dammej (talk) 03:22, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :::No probalo! In all honesty, were a proposal to be submitted mandating that non-Mass Effect images (or images of people's Shepards for display purposes, such as what SoulRipper has) be uploaded elsewhere and embedded rather than uploaded directly to the wiki, I'd likely support it. However, no such proposal has been submitted, and to the best of my knowledge, no such policy exists on the proverbial books at this time. As such, I can't in good conscience let images being used by editors that violate no policies be deleted on the basis of non-existent policies. SpartHawg948 03:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC) ::::Speaking generally as someone who had tried to get a good idea of what was going on based on this (I asked first on Sparts, then I added another question to Lancer's page), it was a bit confusing. Having one admin/editor tell me one thing, then another telling me something else a bit different on my talk page and his is a bit confusing. --Aryn2382 03:32, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :::::Yeah, sorry about that. I saw that Lancer was pretty much doing all the answering of your question on my talk page, and (and this is my bad) didn't really read the answer. If you'd asked me directly (i.e. "Spart, your opinion?" or something like that) I'd have responded, but it's been a long and busy week, and I saw that, for some reason, there was apparently a conversation going on over on my talk page completely independent of me and thought "whatever..." Had I read it, I'd have immediately est you straight here. SpartHawg948 03:45, June 22, 2011 (UTC) I'm hoping that I can get some sort of assent from Lancer here before proceeding, but I'd like to remove this effects section from the policy page, since it does look rather official and such. -- Dammej (talk) 03:50, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :I'm inclined to delete it right now, especially given the self-defeating nature of one of the posts there, where it is noted that "Edits to these pages after voting closes are supposed to be limited to maintenance purposes only." despite the fact that the entire "Effects" section violates this very same principle. For the time being, I've stuck to adding my own official looking bit. But yeah, I'd very much like to remove it, though Lancer's assent and input would certainly be nice first. SpartHawg948 03:58, June 22, 2011 (UTC) I've removed my posts and now I have another forum to plan out. Lancer1289 04:05, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks. I've removed my post as well. -- Dammej (talk) 04:08, June 22, 2011 (UTC) ::I'll also tug down some of the flagging for deletions I made erroneously, based on this bit of confusion, if they haven't been done already.--Aryn2382 04:09, June 22, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, just for future notice: When a proposal is defeated, that's it. There are no "effects", at least none that are new and need to be noted. The status quo prevails. And, in this case, the status quo was that personal images are allowed, but can be challenged. And, if challenged, they fall under the same guidelines as any other article or image up for deletion. So yeah, when a proposal is deleted, nothing changes. SpartHawg948 05:24, June 22, 2011 (UTC)